Are We in for Another Increase in Military Spending?

At the present time, an increase in U.S. military spending seems as superfluous
as a third leg. The United States, armed with the latest in advanced weaponry,
has more military might than any other nation in world history. Moreover, it
has begun a $1
trillion program to refurbish its entire nuclear weapons complex.

America’s major military rivals, China
and Russia, spend only a small fraction of what the United States does on
its armed forces?in China’s case about a third and in Russia’s case about a
ninth. Furthermore, the economic outlay necessary to maintain this vast US military
force constitutes a very significant burden. In fiscal 2015, US
military spending ($598.5 billion) accounted for 54 percent of the US government’s
discretionary spending.

Certainly most Americans are not clamoring for heightened investments in war
and war preparations. According to a Gallup
poll conducted in February 2016, only 37 percent of respondents said the
US government spent too little “for national defense and military purposes,”
compared to 59 percent who said it spent too much (32 percent) or about the
right amount (27 percent).

These findings were corroborated by a Pew
Research Center survey in April 2016, which reported that 35 percent of
American respondents favored increasing US military spending, 24 percent favored
decreasing it, and 40 percent favored keeping it the same. Although these latest
figures show a rise in support for increasing military spending since 2013,
this occurred mostly among Republicans. Indeed, the gap in support for higher
military spending between Republicans and Democrats, which stood at 25 percentage
points in 2013, rose to 41 points by 2016.

Actually, it appears that, when Americans are given the facts about US military
spending, a substantial majority of them favor reducing it. Between December
2015 and February 2016, the nonpartisan Voice
of the People, affiliated with the University of Maryland, provided a sample
of 7,126 registered voters with information on the current US military budget,
as well as leading arguments for and against it.

The arguments were vetted for accuracy by staff members of the House and Senate
appropriations subcommittees on defense. Then, when respondents were asked their
opinion about what should be done, 61
percent said they thought US military spending should be reduced. The biggest
cuts they championed were in spending for nuclear weapons and missile defense
systems.

When it comes to this year’s presumptive Presidential candidates, however,
quite a different picture emerges. The Republican nominee, Donald
Trump, though bragging about building “a military that’s gonna be much stronger
than it is right now,” has on occasion called for reducing military expenditures.
On the other hand, his extraordinarily aggressive
foreign policy positions have led defense contractors to conclude that,
with Trump in the White House, they can look forward to sharp increases in US
military spending.

Indeed, insisting that US military power has shrunk to a pitiful level under
President Obama, he
has promised that, under his presidency, it would be “funded beautifully.”
In March 2016, when Trump appeared on Fox News, he made that commitment more
explicit by promising to increase
military spending.

Given the considerably more dovish orientation of the Democratic electorate,
one would expect Hillary Clinton to stake out a position more opposed to a military
buildup. But, thus far, she has been remarkably cagey about this issue. In September
2015, addressing a campaign meeting in New Hampshire, Clinton called for the
creation of a high-level
commission to examine US military spending. But whether the appointment
of such a commission augurs increases or decreases remains unclear.

Meanwhile, her rather hawkish foreign policy record has convinced
observers that she will support a military weapons buildup. The same conclusion
can be drawn from the “National
Security” section of her campaign website, which declares: “As president,
she’ll ensure the United States maintains the best-trained, best-equipped, and
strongest military the world has ever known.”

Although the big defense contractors generally regard Clinton, like Trump,
as a safe bet, they exercise even greater influence in
Congress, where they pour substantially larger amounts of money into the
campaign coffers of friendly US Senators and Representatives.

Thus, even when a President doesn’t back a particular weapons system, they
can usually count on Congress to fund it. As a Wall
Street publication recently crowed: “No matter who wins the White House
this fall, one thing is clear: Defense spending will climb.”

Will it? Probably so, unless public pressure can convince a new administration
in Washington to adopt a less militarized approach to national and international
security.